I think Cheney has been a bad influence, but not because of his background or the scope of his vision. Coming up with good political office holders isn’t about setting qualifications. It’s about finding people you agree with.
Politicians make, interpret, and enforce the law. Why shouldn’t they be lawyers?
Part of me wants to say “Dingdingding, we have a winner!” Another part of me wants to say that any good (insert ANY profession here) will have some experience with and knowledge of what basically amounts to a solid liberal arts curriculum.
As mentioned, law and government go together like peanut butter and jelly. That’s the simplest explanation. Government may benefit from more “business” minded people, but most business minded people are more interested in making money and using it influence government than they are in administering government.
Any jerk can think in generalities. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
The problem with “visionary thinkers” is that they never worry about the details of actually implementing their vision. Visionary thinkers come up with things like “every American should own a home”. They get mad when practical thinkers tell them “Guess what? Most people can’t afford one and if you try to get them loans for one, half of them will default in a few years.”
Business people might not be the right choice either. A business is different from a government. You can’t just lay off or outsource 20% of your population if they fail to perform.
This is possible, of course. I take it, though, that you’re not suggesting that that is the principal cause of our current problems.
That would depend on the lawyer. Some deal with tiny details. Others deal with perspective and balance. Others deal with negotiation and communicaton. Many of us deal with a combination of these things.
A good lawyer will know the policy arguments behind the laws. This is essentially what a politician has to think of.
A french lawyer just has to memorize and argue the literal law. In a common law system like the US, policy arguments are essential. If a judge feels like the law is bringing about an unjust result, then there is a chance he will carve out an exception. So lawyers are forced to think about the big picture. What laws will lead to the most amount of justice. That is essentially what politicians are supposed to do.
Good lawyers are also good communicators. They have to persuade judges and juries all the time.
Noting wrong with having a lot of lawyers in politics.
A good point. I should have thought my response through more fully. I doubt there is very much of a cross-over between the written arts and politicians, is there?
The American people seem to agree: on Nov. 4, a pair of lawyers defeated a pair of nonlawyers for the top two political gigs in the country. But brains, humility, good judgment, integrity, people skills and the ability to communicate are more important than a law degree, as such.
If there are “too many” lawyers in politics, the remedy is to encourage more people of other professions to run. If they can convince the voters to give them a chance, God bless 'em. I certainly would want doctors weighing in on medical policy, scientists weighing in on science policy, IT professionals weighing in on telecommunications policy, etc. But lawyers are particularly well-suited for lawmaking, and from the earliest days of the republic, they have been deeply involved in politics. No reason to think that will ever change, nor should it, IMHO.
On a tangital note, I’m part of a political organization in KC that’s designed to help foster change around the city, county, and state levels by vetting candidates and campaigning for certain changes that support our ideals. I go to these meetings and I’m frankly a bit disappointed that 90% of the room is filled with lawyers. I go to political events and 90% of the room is filled with lawyers. I’m a lawyer myself and every time I go to these things I wonder: is no one else interested in politics? Or is it just that lawyers only know other lawyers and so that’s who get invited into the fold?
Sure, we have a smattering of teachers and our fair share of union reps. But really…it’s lawyers lawyers lawyers. Lawyers all the way down.
I would say it’s more like an example inspired by our current problems.
Working in a business that deals extensively with lawyers, I have to say that lawyers are suited to politics in a way that many engineers and businesspeople aren’t - they are good at spending long hours talking bullshit about nothing and not actually doing anything other than shifting blame.
For all of the reasons **Northern Piper **said, and then some. I think you’re too hung up on the actual procedures of the law, the day-to-day micromanaging and application than what I had in mind. I can agree with you that a philosopher wouldnt know which forms to fill out for a property transfer, but my feeling is that as far as debate, understanding of the law, ethical considerations, etc., a philosopher is just as qualified as a lawyer. The two fields overlap, and it doesnt take a lawyer to run a government well. In fact, one can argue that too many lawyers hinder government
What about a lawyer that makes him intrinsically better at personal relations than a philosopher? Not all lawyers are trial lawyers. Some slave away in offices drafting oddly worded documents
I think that, going back to my original post, to clarify, I am not against lawyers per say, in government. I simply feel that politics and bureacracy figures too much into the workings of a government, and lawyers are overrepresented in that fact. Simply stated, they’ve made government into something that lawyers have to handle, instead of fitting themselves into government. It would be nice to have less red tape and more governing, deciding right and wrong, that sorta thing. Its not always a bad thing, but theres too much of it that it chockes the system
I was a carpenter before I came to law school. Also in my law school class are a biochemist, a navy pilot, a high school English teacher, a CPA, a stay-at-home-mom, a marketing director, a social worker, a professional poker player, a medieval historian, a mathematician, a doctor, a CEO, and many many other diverse and sundry types.
Do our prior experiences all get wiped out in your mind just because we are also lawyers?
^No, I suppose not. But if leaders would play up their non-lawyer creds a little more, I wouldnt have to make this thread 
Actually, the truth of the matter is that all your prior experiences get wiped out of your mind during the call to the bar ceremony, in which your brains are sucked out and replaced with a horsehair wig, leaving you as a legal zombie to prey on the unsuspecting public, until after you have sucked out enough of your client’s brains, you then TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
Didn’t the candidates spend two years trying to persuade everyone that they were regular people?
I’d starve.
All politicians are “regular people”. No matter if you were born a millionaire, live in a gated community, or went to Harvard and Yale. Its simply a tactic thats transparent and plays on other issues. What I mean is that I wish they would campaign and say that they have studied Plato and Aristotle, have read both the bible and the Quran, understand the difference between operant conditioning and behaviorism, and can list the reasons why Nietzsche and Heidegger are still admired despite having Nazi sympathies. Sure, a Harvard Law Review presidency is great, but thats all I heard from Obama. Who’s his favorite philosopher? Can he tell me why Descartes was important? Can he summarize how WWI lead to WWII?
Other things are important too, I wish our politicians would play those up more and I wish the public would consider those things just as important
How many members of the public would be like you and open to this kind of persuasion? I agree that intellectual development is admirable and important. But I could really give a damn about the specific questions you list here (except for the one about WWII). A candidate’s having studied Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, the Quran, Nietzsche, and Heidegger aren’t important to me at all, and I’m not an anti-intellectual.
Google says it’s Reinhold Neibhur.